Talk:Time

Please add all new material at the bottom of this page. New material placed at the top is likely to be ignored by regular readers because they look for the most current stuff at the bottom where it belongs.

A comment on the measurement of time in the lede.

The lede begins presently as:

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.

Lets suppose a measuring system, say the use of my watch and a wall calendar. Now according to the definition given, time is some part of this system, but what or which part of the system it is left undefined. For instance, conventionally, "the clock" is "...a part of the measuring system used to sequence events...". Even my left thumb can be a part of such a system. Furthermore, time existed before we evolved and started measuring it, hence existing independently of any measuring systems. Even more revealing is what we would have if we defined space similarly, such as: "Space is a part of the measuring system used to map the relative positions of objects in three-dimensions." Although not incorrect in anyway, its way off the mark, lacking in definition; the essential information of "what part" and clarity (see the space article for a better description that does not invoke measurement). I know getting consensus wording has been difficult, but I'd surely like to see something else written. Perhaps we can work on something like this:

Time is a one-dimensional succession of events or instants that occur in the universe's past, present and future. Time is recorded and quantified with clocks, which are used to measure the relative duration of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as velocity, power and frequencies.

Note: With only instants existing, current events have no duration, so durations are an illusion (events with duration don't exist). To deny both instants and events, though would either venture into old fallibilistic speculation or unfruitful research that involves some form of substitution (such as substituting space and space-time concepts for those of time, thus "denying" time exists), but since a succession of instants is the same as a succession of events with no duration we could drop "instants" although I think the concept of instants may be important enough to include. Thoughts. --Modocc (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's just a lede. "Time is a part of the measuring system..." is only a problem if the rest of the article doesn't then go on to later describe in more detail how "time" is different from "a clock" etc, and how and it what ways time is independent of its measurement (if it even is) and so forth, which it does do. Thus I don't personally have a problem with that lede. Your suggested lede is also good, though. I'd still leave it as is. I'm not an expert on time and not a regular editor of this article, though. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1> I do not see how that proposed lede is really better as a definition (nor do I see it reflected in any of the sources, though I do see "system" repeatedly in sources). You have identified time with the succession of events. But to say events are successive, one must already have a notion of a temporal order. (A succession of events is a succession of events, it is not "time itself". We also reorder the apparent succession based on our knowledge of the time it takes for us to perceive events - we have control over which event we designate to be successive to another.) 2> To be clear, I think it impossible to give a single definition of the sort like "a rectangle is a quadrilateral with 4 right angles". Defining time in simpler, non-temporal terms is elusive because it is fundamental to our understanding of all our experiences. On a Kantian view, time is not something we can passively observe, it is the framework we involuntarily give to all our experiences - even our notions about the pre-human past. I won't deny that "time existed before we evolved", but whenever we think about the pre-human universe, we bring to it our own mental framework. 3> Time is also quantified without clocks, we quantify it when 2 events start at roughly the same time & one completes before the other 4> Other dimensions of the measuring system are the 3 dimensions of space. Other (non-dimensional) components of the measuring system are a>our system of numbers, b>the units we use to quantify time (seconds, days, years,...), and c>the devices we build to indicate time (clocks, calendars) and measure space (rulers) d> our own sense of rhythm & regularity (such as beats - musical & biological). e>Identifying all these sources goes beyond the focus of a lede, but, sourced, would help the article 5> My goal in the lede has been to give as comprehensive as possible exposition of the fundamentsl ways that the word time is used, bearing in mind that"Learning to handle the word time involves a multiplicity of verbal skills, including the ability to handle such connected words as earlier, later, now, second, and hour" and "the meaning of a word is how it is used" not how it can be narrowly defined. I do not mean to say nothing could improve the lede, but I think it important to lay aside any attempt to give the necessary & sufficient conditions for the use of the word "time". We will never get a definition that is simpler & non-circular. Proposed definitions that treat time as if it were something independent of "the way our brains are wired" will never comprehensively cover the usage of the word--JimWae (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that descriptions of time are inherently circular, but I have not attempted nor do I believe I suggested unraveling that paradox. The scope of my suggested introductory sentence was deficient though. For instance, "Event B occurred during the clock event C, and at time C the event C occurred." Since self-referencing is not a succession of two independent events, it was not included in my description. I am tempted to suggest a better description, however I will refrain until I can return to discuss it at a latter date when I have more time. --Modocc (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lede should be prefixed with "Measurements of ..". 1Z (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Chip Scale atomic clock

That picture of a chip-scale atomic clock has to be the most archaic kludge of technology I've seen since Jack Kilby's first integrated circuit. Handcrafted wirebonds and solder joints? I think technology has done better than that by now. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It was New in 2004. Idea is to make them small - applications for GPS maybe? Caption does need work--JimWae (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a laboratory prototype. From that perspective it probably is not likely to look like a packaged commercial product. Furthermore, the chip-scale atomic clock is obviously not the solder joints and the in-lab wiring. Some people probably find this image (and the story behind it) fascinating - I know I do. Finally, this clock seems to be an advancement, the culmination of a research effort, which produced a device 100 times smaller than previous atomic clocks. In my opinion, that is an accomplishment worthy of note.

Jim, one possible application is to replace the quartz crystal oscillators. It is also intended for integration into wireless communications technologies, "precise navigation", and time keeping devices in the commercial and military sectors.

Also, it is interesting that it can be operated on batteries, integrated into existing semiconductor applications and fabrication processes, has the potential for mass production now, and vastly outperform quartz crystal oscillators. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perception of time

The Time article shows a diagram representing 4-dimensional spacetime with the "present" in 3-dimensions. (For simplicity, this is shown as 3-dimensionsal spacetime with the "present" in 2-dimensions.)

Another way of putting this could be to view us as 4-dimensional entities passing through a 3-dimensional universe at a particular rate ("the flow of time") in which light (i.e. our ability to perceive things) were located, and that these 3-dimensions could be distorted by high-mass objects (e.g. gravity's effect e.g. black holes). This particular rate ("the flow of time") through the 3-dimensional universe could be converted to movement within the 3-dimensional universe, until the speed of light is reached, at which point the rate (“the flow of time") drops to zero. Again, perhaps it's easier to show this as 3-dimensional entities passing through a 2-dimensional universe. This would be consistent with our perceived flow of time and the scientific views espoused within the article, and therefore not comprise new research. Would it be helpful to add this other way of putting things to the body of the article? Wyncandy (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Contributions to encyclopedia articles need to be verifiably from reliable sources. Blogs are for original research--JimWae (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proper/coordinate time

Should their be some discussion of this distinction in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not a discussion here, but at the end of the section time#Physical definition, immediately before the first subsection, a short by-the-way mention with wikilinks to the relevant articles Proper time and Coordinate time. - DVdm (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we start with the Philosophy?

I can't feel we should start with the philosophy first, you can't measure time unless you have worked out what it is, a header is not the same as a definition. Maybe time measurement should be a seperate article? 2.97.173.98 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. Both in science and in everyday life, scientists and John Doe have (unanimously) worked out that time can only usefully be defined as what is read on a clock (from wristwatch to cesium atom) — see also Time in physics. So time is essentially measurement bound. Putting philosophy first would give heavy undue weight to a (mutually disagreeing) body of practically useless and therefore much less relevant points of view. It's actually the philosophers who never managed to "work out what it is", so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

But time is relative to culture and environment, take the Mayans who look at time as a never ending cycle of segments determined on Solar and Lunar calendars. This was the standard way of looking at things throughout pre-history. We retain this structure even now only we say a solar year as a standard unit of measuring time. Despite the "fact;" We reset it each January! 150.182.210.231 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the Sun and the Moon can be (and are) used as clocks, so they can be used to define time. Look at our units like days, months and years (and their many flavours). These useful clocks/units, together with, for instance, heart beats, fit nicely in the aforementioned list of clocks (from wristwatch to cesium atom). That probably explains why the article starts with the history section. - DVdm (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please remove some external links

Please remove some external links from external links section. The amount of links we have in that section currently, we can easily create another article on it. I thought of editing myself, but, since I am not a regular editor of the article (don't know about previous consensus -if there was any on this) I am requesting it here. I have noticed there are some books too in external links section. Can we include those in further reading section? Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)